How Can Three Questions on Modernity Be Answered? The World-System Theory and Japanese Experiences

IF 1.7 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Japanese Journal of Sociology Pub Date : 2018-02-27 DOI:10.1111/ijjs.12078
Nobuyuki Yamada
{"title":"How Can Three Questions on Modernity Be Answered? The World-System Theory and Japanese Experiences","authors":"Nobuyuki Yamada","doi":"10.1111/ijjs.12078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article addresses three questions on modernity. Can “the premodern” and “the modern” be differentiated in the historical process? If they can, what is the relationship between “the premodern” and “the modern”? And what will become of these relationships in the future? This article attempts to answer these questions by criticizing the world-system theory and considering some of the experiences of the modernization process in Japan. The world-system theory has tried to relativize social theories from advanced societies in the global perspective. However, the world-system, born during the long 16th century, was defined from the start as modern and capitalist. Therefore, logically this theory cannot adequately grasp the modernization process. To overcome this challenge, this article first accepts the differentiation between “the premodern” and “the modern” and defines modern society as one in which “the modern” is not exclusive but dominant. Second, this article turns to some of the Japanese experiences of “modernization”, particularly in industrial relations. This article asserts that a Japanese-style society tends to keep “the premodern” over a longer term and to replace “modern” relations with “the premodern” ones in management. The author defined this process as informalization. Third, this article stresses that since the late 1990s with globalization, informalization is no longer derived from original “premodern” relations, which are nowadays reproduced by capital. An example of this is the “black company.” This article notes, finally, that capitalism is likely to reproduce premodern forms for its duration.</p>","PeriodicalId":29652,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Sociology","volume":"27 1","pages":"55-69"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ijjs.12078","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijjs.12078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article addresses three questions on modernity. Can “the premodern” and “the modern” be differentiated in the historical process? If they can, what is the relationship between “the premodern” and “the modern”? And what will become of these relationships in the future? This article attempts to answer these questions by criticizing the world-system theory and considering some of the experiences of the modernization process in Japan. The world-system theory has tried to relativize social theories from advanced societies in the global perspective. However, the world-system, born during the long 16th century, was defined from the start as modern and capitalist. Therefore, logically this theory cannot adequately grasp the modernization process. To overcome this challenge, this article first accepts the differentiation between “the premodern” and “the modern” and defines modern society as one in which “the modern” is not exclusive but dominant. Second, this article turns to some of the Japanese experiences of “modernization”, particularly in industrial relations. This article asserts that a Japanese-style society tends to keep “the premodern” over a longer term and to replace “modern” relations with “the premodern” ones in management. The author defined this process as informalization. Third, this article stresses that since the late 1990s with globalization, informalization is no longer derived from original “premodern” relations, which are nowadays reproduced by capital. An example of this is the “black company.” This article notes, finally, that capitalism is likely to reproduce premodern forms for its duration.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现代性的三个问题如何回答?世界体系理论与日本经验
本文论述了关于现代性的三个问题。“前现代”与“现代”能否在历史进程中加以区分?如果可以,“前现代”和“现代”之间的关系是什么?这些关系在未来会变成什么样子?本文试图通过对世界体系理论的批判和对日本现代化进程的一些经验的思考来回答这些问题。世界体系理论试图在全球视野下将先进社会的社会理论相对化。然而,诞生于漫长的16世纪的世界体系,从一开始就被定义为现代资本主义。因此,从逻辑上讲,这一理论不能充分把握现代化进程。为了克服这一挑战,本文首先接受了“前现代”与“现代”的区别,并将现代社会定义为“现代”不是排他性的,而是占主导地位的社会。其次,本文介绍了日本“现代化”的一些经验,特别是在劳资关系方面。本文认为,一个日本式的社会倾向于长期保持“前现代”,并在管理上用“后现代”关系取代“现代”关系。作者将这一过程定义为非正规化。第三,本文强调,自20世纪90年代末以来,随着全球化的发展,非正规化不再源于原始的“前现代”关系,而这些关系如今被资本复制。这方面的一个例子是“黑人公司”。这篇文章最后指出,资本主义很可能在其存续期间复制前现代形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information - IFA Women's career development through everyday life in post-war Japan: Survey of the Shufuren (the Japanese Association of Consumer Organizations) Careers in “woman-friendly” occupations: Investigating the role of beauty consultant in the era of neoliberalism Career formation of Japanese women entrepreneurs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1